Pole v. State
198 So. 3d 961
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Pole, pro se in his wife’s dissolution case, arrived ~38 minutes late, disheveled, interrupted the court, and admitted drinking two beers the prior evening.
- Court directed drug/alcohol testing (breathalyzer .208/.216); lab results admitted at the contempt hearing.
- The trial judge conducted a summary proceeding, adjudicated Pole guilty of direct criminal contempt, and sentenced him to 15 days in jail; no transcript of the contempt hearing was made.
- Pole appealed, arguing he was entitled to counsel at the contempt hearing and that the court failed to follow Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830 procedures for direct contempt.
- The district court held the record inadequate and, applying Plank, concluded Pole’s conduct, at most, constituted indirect criminal contempt, requiring the protections of rule 3.840; court reversed and vacated the contempt order.
Issues
| Issue | Pole's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel in summary direct criminal contempt | Pole: entitled to counsel before incarceration | State: no such requirement for short summary contempt | Court: did not reach a new rule on the issue; Plank left the conflict unresolved—but Pole was entitled to counsel here because proceeding was not direct contempt |
| Direct vs indirect contempt classification | Pole: (implicit) court erred in procedure; conduct not shown to be direct | State: conduct occurred in court and justified direct contempt | Held: conduct involved testimony and evidence outside judge’s contemporaneous observation (tests, witness testimony) → indirect contempt |
| Adequacy of the record/transcript | Pole: lack of reporter/transcript undermines reliability and due process | State: proceeding was summary and recorded only in an order | Held: absence of a full record mandates reversal; criminal contempt requires an adequate record for appellate review |
| Source of right to appointed counsel (procedural rules vs constitution) | Pole: rule-based entitlement (relying on district precedent) | State: rules cannot create substantive constitutional rights; appointment must flow from constitution or statute | Held: court criticized relying solely on procedural rules to create a right but reversed on other grounds (classification/record); did not create new constitutional holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Plank v. State, 190 So.3d 594 (Fla. 2016) (examined whether conduct was direct contempt and whether counsel required; plurality concluded no right to counsel but a majority agreed conduct was not direct contempt)
- Al-Hakim v. State, 63 So.3d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (held indigent contemnor entitled to appointed counsel in summary direct criminal contempt)
- Woods v. State, 987 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (ruled Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure require availability of appointed counsel in summary direct contempt proceedings)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (direct contempt requires the court to have actually seen or heard the misconduct; otherwise contempt is indirect and full procedural protections apply)
- Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 588 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (to affirm direct contempt, record must show compliance with Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.830 procedural requirements)